I have to admit, I enjoyed this film, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. This is only the second Roger Corman film I've seen so far, and therefore I can only really compare it to the other film I saw by him, The Terror. I can clearly recognize the directing style, and basic film-making style, but I must say that this is better than The Terror. The plot is pretty good, and fairly interesting, and more original than most other films dealing with Frankenstein. It has a decent enough pace; I wasn't bored for the 90 minutes it lasted. The script is fairly good too, a good twist on the original Frankenstein story, though I guess some fans of the original story wouldn't like the various changes. The acting is good enough, both John Hurt and Raul Julia gives pretty good performances, and the rest of the cast is decent. The characters are fairly well-written and credible. The film has a fairly bad name, it seems; yes, the monster does look more like the result of genetic mutation or something similar, rather than a creature built together by human bodies, and, arguably, the film has several violent scenes that seem to be there mainly to add violence rather than substance to the film, but apart from that, the film is pretty good, at least worth a watch, if only one watch. The effects are decent enough, at least for a film from 1990. The makeup effects and such were also pretty good, I must say that the monster's face, especially the eyes, did send a chill through my spine, the first time he was shown. I liked the various science fiction aspects of the film, and the social commentary was very good, too. The ending was a little weird, but it was a fairly good climax. All in all, a decent enough science fiction/horror drama, and worth one watch, if you can catch it for free. I recommend it to fans of Roger Corman and open-minded fans of Frankenstein and/or horror films in general; just be prepared that it won't be an incredible or very memorable film, just an entertaining 90 minutes, if you're into violent movies without any real purpose. 6/10
Add a Review
-
ma-cortes10 January 2006The film narrates how a scientist (John Hurt) of the future is become into a time traveller . Thus , he accidentally returns 1816 and nearly a lagoon Swiss he meets Lord Byron (Jason Patrick), his lover Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) and Percy Shelley ; but also Baron Frankenstein (Raul Julia) and his monster (Nick Brimble). The Baron has created a terrifying monster and cannot ultimately control him but he develops a taste for a bride and he begins a killing spree .The monster is really horrifying , he's vengeful and craving of blood.
A sci-fi movie version of the legendary terror story. Lots of horror images and the picture's entertaining with no being too creepy . Good performances from John Hurt and Raul Julia and great supporting cast as Jason Patrick, Bridget Fonda, Nick Brimble, and with several powerful sequences . Besides, the film has great loads of blood and gore , the filmmaker retains a fascination with the decapitated members. Some typical elements as the monster's bride, the madness and electric storm on the tower remain still in similar way. Excellent atmosphere provided by professional cinematographers as Armando Nannuzzi and Michael Scott. Film is based on Brian Aldiss novel (Artificial intelligence A. I.). The motion picture was regularly directed by Roger Corman, in fact there are gaps as well as flaws in the plot and results to be a little slow-moving. Rating : 5.5/10. Average but amusing. -
Hey_Sweden11 October 2013Legendary independent filmmaker Roger Corman returned to a directors' chair for the first time in almost 20 years with this ambitious, offbeat project, an adaptation of the novel by Brian Aldiss. It's fun to a degree, and certainly interesting, if not a patch on his best work, the Edgar Allan Poe adaptations of the 1960s. Fortunately for him the budget does look like it was bigger on this thing than on some movies in his filmography. That allows for decent production values and a whole smorgasbord of special effects. The main attraction is the cast, especially our two leads, John Hurt and Raul Julia.
Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a scientist whose implosion experiments have created "time slips". Joe himself gets caught in a time slip and is transported back to Victorian times where he chances to meet none other than Dr. Frankenstein (Julia), his monster (Nick Brimble), Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda), Lord Byron (Jason Patrick), and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence, the late singer of the rock band INXS). Joe becomes determined to save the life of Justine Moritz (played by Cormans' daughter Catherine) and ultimately put an end to the monsters' rampage.
As scripted by Corman himself and film historian F.X. Feeney, this is fanciful entertainment that does have a good pace going for it. It is amusing to see characters from far different worlds interacting, although Frankenstein and others in this story adjust extremely well to discovering such things as computers and Joes' ultra-sophisticated car (which comes complete with a sexy female voice supplied by Terri Treas). The effects are frequently cheesy but entertaining, Nick Dudmans' makeup for the monster is good, period recreation is acceptable, and the music by Carl Davis provides just the right touch. How well the ending works may be up to the individual viewer.
Must viewing for all Corman devotees, if only to see the kind of project with which he laid his directorial career to rest.
Six out of 10. -
Tin Man-525 June 1999"Not of This Earth" and "The Terror," low budget films from the fifties and sixties, are what Roger Corman has always been best known for. This was his first film in nearly twenty years, and he does a nice job with it, surprisingly. Based on the novel by fantasy/sci-fi author Brian W. Aldess, this film works because it takes the classic horror story and makes it relevant in modern times. A scientist named Joe Bodenland creates a nuclear device which causes much destruction, and some of the effects of it causes him to blast back through time to another land in which Mary Shelley and Dr. Frankenstein and his creature co-exist. He is repulsed at Dr. Frankenstein's actions, but when he tries to put a stop to them, he is stopped by his own hypocrisy. For both men have created something that has caused great destruction upon the earth.
It's talky and philosophical, but on the other hand, so was the Shelley book, and this film follows in the spirit of the classic novel. John Hurt gives a stunning performance as Joe, especially at the end, when he and the Creature are blasted far into another time that has been destroyed. We soon learn that this chaos and disorder is a result of his nuclear device, and when Joe realizes his "monster" has destroyed the whole world, he looks at the Creature, who is demanding to know his identity, and says, "I am....Frankenstein." Hurt does a nice job in this role.
The late Raul Julia has little to do as Dr. Frankenstein besides look demented and act insane, and he does a good job, as usual. Nick Brimble as the Creature also lends support, portraying the part cleverly....This monster believes all people on the earth are creations of Dr. Frankenstein, so what difference does it make whether or not he kills them? It's sort of innocence combined with rage and ignorance. Not since Karloff as the Creature appeared so frightening. Bridget Fonda and Jason Patric also do well as Mary Shelley and Lord Byron, who appear sort of as Joe's consciences.
The ending is also depressingly disturbing, and it will leave you thinking. All in all, Corman directs with crispness and cunning that he lacked in his earlier, low-budgeted films. Perhaps he was a nineties director who was born a generation too early. At any rate, he does fine here, and if you're looking for a nice horror film that will challenge you as well as frighten you, give this one a try.
*** out of **** -
JoeytheBrit1 April 2010Toiling in the not-too-distant future, Joe Buchanan (John Hurt), a not-quite mad scientist, has invented a machine that vaporises the enemy while leaving the environment untouched, something that will protect the good ol' U.S of A from evil. The only flaw in Buchanan's invention is that it has a tendency to open up one of those time-space continuum thingies in the form of a neon-flashing cloud through which the odd Mongol warrior, etc, has a tendency to pop. Before you know it – and not without the viewer experiencing a certain sense of schadenfraude at his plight – Buchanan finds himself sucked into the portal and spat out again in the Alps of 1816. Him and his car, actually – an intelligent, talking, gull-winged item that looks like KnightRider KITT's sexy sister.
Hiding the car in a convenient barn, Buchanan wanders off in search of life and happens upon a tavern wherein he finds a certain chap named Frankenstein (the late lamented Raul Julia). Strangely enough, neither Buchanan or Frankenstein seem in the slightest bit perturbed to discover that the craggy-faced scientist has strayed some 200+ years from his own era, and strike up a cautious friendship when they realise they are both men of science. Frankenstein has just created his monster (Nick Brimble) who resembles an overweight redneck trucker in a strong headwind rather than a creature bolted together from spare human parts. The monster has adopted the annoying habit of killing locals, including Frankenstein's brother, seemingly unable to grasp the fact that, unlike him, they aren't all creations of the good doctor. A young girl has been accused of the murder, and is sentenced to hang for the crime, a fact which doesn't bother Frankenstein in the least, but which horrifies Buchanan, who attempts to enlist the aid of Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) to save the girl. The free-loving writer is in the early stages of writing the Frankenstein novel while enjoying a hippyish summer with George (Jason Patric) and Percy (Michael Hutchence), and is quickly taken with this mysterious (if rather craggy-faced) stranger with the silver horseless carriage. Even back in 1816, it seems, a decent set of wheels was enough to pull a bird
Frankenstein Unbound was veteran schlock-horror director Roger Corman's first official attempt at directing for nearly twenty years (although he did have a hand in the direction of 1978's Deathsport), and it's not difficult to understand why he might have been attracted to such a project. There's enough story-line crammed into a scant 82 minutes for three movies, and enough subtext to keep the most analytical of viewers absorbed. Having said that, Frankenstein Unbound is a movie that never rises above its budgetary constraints and the grade-Z origins of its famous director. A good cast tries manfully – with the notable exception of Fonda who is about as animated as a ventriloquist's dummy in need of a hand up its back – but their characters are never even remotely believable, and react to every increasingly hectic plot twist with a total lack of, well reaction. Foe example, no sooner is Frankenstein's beloved torn asunder by his monstrous creation than he's calmly zapping ten squillion volts through her on the operating table. And peasants who believe in witchcraft tip their hats with only the mildest hint of apprehension or curiosity at Buchanan's sports car as it motors through their cobbled streets.
The subtext – that, like Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein, modern-day scientists are at risk of becoming 'an abomination in the eyes of God' as they pursue ever more extreme weapons of defence – is never far from Corman's agenda, and is presented with varying degrees of success. It's a message inherent in Shelley's tale and, while the finale, together with the brief prologue, mirrors the beginning and end of Shelley's novel, the film abandons any sympathetic attitude toward the monster in order to concentrate on its message. Ultimately, the film trips over itself with an unnecessarily confused final sequence in which Buchanan is left alone to face the consequences of his actions.
Bottom line: interesting idea, poorly handled by a director who may have been well-advised to leave the directing (and writing) duties to someone a touch more accomplished. -
I've watched this film several times now and actually, every time I watch it seems to get a little better each time. It's an original concept on the continuance of the Frankenstein myth with some added "modern" futuristic bends and twists that motivate the story along. One of the best thing about this film is John Hurt. This doesn't seem to be his type of movie yet he does very well in it. His voice, especially, is captivating and keeps your attention. He has the type of voice that very few actors these days can boast about in that it has personality and sonority in tone. Something akin to the voices of Colin Clive, Vincent Price and of course, Claude Rains. If they ever decide to do a serious biopic about Rains, I really hope that John Hurt is considered: he'd be perfect for the part! "Yes...I know. Made me from dead. I love dead...hate living." - The Monster in the original 1935 "Bride of Frankenstein"
-
constructionbob9 May 2000This movie is truly bizarre. It tries so hard to give the story of Frankenstein this fresh relevance to today by mirroring it to science/weapons development, but neglecting the fact that the whole original story has relevance already. So, what you're left with are some cheezy special effects and some mixed-bag acting. I especially love the early future scenes with blinking lights, dot matrix printers and IBM XTs. The KITT-rip-off car is rather entertaining too.
A couple great scenes to watch for: the early bike-burying scene from which the above quote comes from, the half-baked romance ("I've never even imagined someone like you." "That's because I don't exist yet.") and the spirograph-esqe lasers. I really don't think this movie deserves as high of a rating as it has (5.3 at the time of this writing), but at least it's kinda fun. Just don't expect it to change your life. -
disdressed1222 October 2006i just watched Roger Corman's "Frankenstein Unbound".i had no expectations,so i was pleasantly surprised.this is actual a very entertaining movie,with good performances across the board.i especially liked the monster.i thought it was very realistic and could see how it would inspire fear in people.the special effects were not the greatest,but i have seen much worse.they did not take away from the story.i also liked the plot.a scientist from the year 2031 transported through time to the day of doctor Frankenstein. i thought that was a unique twist on the story.i have also seen the dreadful "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" starring Kenneth Branau as doctor Frankenstein(I believe he also directed the film)and Robert Deniro in a casting blunder as the monster.this movie came out some years later,but it still pales in comparison to Frankenstein Unbound.the one complaint i do have about this film is the way it ended.they had the opportunity to tie things up,and they didn't.this is a minor complaint however.this movie is definitely worth a rental. 7* out of 10
-
barnabyrudge24 September 2006Roger Corman hadn't directed a film for a long, long time when he resurfaced in 1990 with Frankenstein Unbound; instead he had been busy producing various exploitation pot-boilers. This science fiction travesty is taken from a Brian Aldiss novel, and upon viewing it one of the first things that springs to mind is the question of why Corman would choose to return to the director's seat for a film as terrible as this. The script is all over the place in terms of logic, and the sets, costumes and make-up have a startlingly cheap and amateurish look about them. The final insult is that a cast of fine, talented stars have been somehow lured into the project, and then wasted by the evidently-rusty director.
In 2031, a scientist named Buchanan (John Hurt) invents a weapon that is capable of imploding other objects. Unknown to its creator, the weapon is so technologically powerful and sophisticated that when used it causes time-slips to appear. Buchanan and his futuristic car are sucked through one of these time slips, and find themselves travelling back to 19th Century Switzerland. At an inn, Buchanan meets a man named Victor Frankenstein (Raul Julia) and immediately recognises his name from the famous Mary Shelley novel. Later, Buchanan runs into Mary Shelley (Bridget Fonda) herself, as well as her famous literary contemporaries Lord Byron (Jason Patric) and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence). It emerges that Mary's book was not a work of fiction as supposed, and that she got her ideas by witnessing Frankenstein working to create a real monster. The monster (Nick Brimble) is brought to life and wreaks the usual havoc upon the local peasants, ripping out hearts and smashing heads with incredible power. The monster is also furious that his creator has not made him a mate, and by way of revenge kills Frankenstein's fiancée Elizabeth (Catherine Rabett).
Frankenstein Unbound is an example of self-indulgent lunacy that simply doesn't work. The time travelling aspects of the story remind one of the Back To The Future movies, but the similarities end there. When the supposed horror aspects take over, the film goes horribly wrong. There is nothing remotely frightening about it, and were it not for a few moments of gore (chests being ripped apart, heads getting knocked off, etc.) the film would almost be suitable for children! Performance wise, virtually every member of the cast fails to do anything worthwhile with their parts Hurt is totally routine as the scientist from the future; Julia chews the scenery embarrassingly as Frankenstein; Brimble is buried beneath so much unconvincing make-up that it's impossible to say whether his performance is good or not; and the trio of Fonda, Hutchence and Patric amble around in front of the camera looking vaguely bemused as the trio of English authors. Frankenstein Unbound is a poor hybrid of old-style horror and modern-style science fiction, not even enjoyable for camp value or unintentional laughs. Don't bother with it. -
classicsoncall3 June 2006Trying to deal with time travel stories often makes my head hurt, because it sets up a whole set of 'what if' scenarios. For example, when Dr. Buchanan (John Hurt) produces Mary Shelley's (Bridget Fonda) book "Frankenstein - or, The Modern Prometheus", wouldn't natural curiosity have compelled her to read the story she hadn't written yet? And in doing so, wouldn't she have changed certain parts of the story, or even added the character of Dr. Buchanan into it? One's mind reels at the possibilities.
Focusing on that aspect of "Frankenstein Unbound" would have been provocative enough, but the film gets deeper into science fiction territory with Buchanan's particle beam weapon and it's side effects of missing persons, time slips and weather disturbances. The number of throwaway scenes that did nothing to propel the story forward surprised me, starting with that warrior on horseback that appeared when the youngsters were burying the outmoded bicycle. Buchanan himself hallucinates a couple of dream sequences that don't connect to anything and have no bearing on what eventually happens.
Dr. Frankenstein (Raul Julia) is an interesting character. Disturbed and protective of his creation at the same time, it's ironic that he takes no responsibility in the face of an innocent girl's death by hanging for the murder of his younger brother. To him, his only rationalization can be - "I'm a scientist, I cannot sin..."
Probably a plus, the film doesn't dwell on the creation of The Monster, he's certainly creepy enough without appearing to be a patch job of multiple bodies; to this viewer he calls to mind my vision of the Swamp Thing. Ironically, the transformation of Elizabeth into the Bride of Frankenstein is visually stunning and a closer tribute to the original in her brief appearance.
Ultimately though, it seems the film stumbled around to come up with an appropriate ending and I'm not so sure that was achieved. The character of Buchanan was just as much a villain as Frankenstein and The Monster itself, so having him wend his way far off to the futuristic city just left me with question marks. Perhaps that was meant to be his punishment, along with making him walk instead of taking his trusty talking carriage. -
In the year 2031, the (mad?) scientist Dr. Buchanan, played by John Hurt, gets sucked into a time portal by accident and is transported back through time a few hundred years. At first he has no idea of where he is, but after a quick dinner with a mysterious man, Buchanan thinks he knows. The man is actually Dr. Frankenstein himself! At first Buchanan is excited about the situation, but after he encounters a well-known historical monster, he is more than anxious to find a way to return to his time.
Director Roger Corman´s comeback is not as good as it should have been. With an original and interesting story and a really good actor in the leading role, this should have been ace. The start is very promising, but then the monster enters and everything collapses. The monster is poorly made and it almost behaves like an American wrestler from the WWF, not like the scary creature it is supposed to be. The effects when the monster kills people are also laughable. And in the end the story just becomes to much to handle. The ending is pure idiocy. Buchanan´s talking car is a pleasure to watch though, even if it looks like something that didn´t make it to the set of "Knight Rider".
I love John Hurt, I really do. But why does he have to make so strange career choices? I loved him in "The Elephant Man" and "Alien", but since then he hasn´t done much work worth seeing. But John Hurt is always worth seeing, and this case is not an exception. Hurt actually saves the movie from being a total disaster. Raul Julia and Bridget Fonda also do a job well done, as Dr. Victor Frankenstein respectively the author Mary Shelley.
But this is still a big disappointment, with both the science fiction and the horror elements lacking in creativity. Nice settings and good acting saves this one.
* * out of * * * * * -
CMRKeyboadist10 January 2007Frankenstein Unbound is one of those movies that is almost impossible to categorize. Part horror, part science fiction, part fantasy, and part comedy. And what is even more interesting is the cast of all stars. Roger Corman is able to put all of these together to form a truly mesmerizing film that you will never forget.
It is in the future. John Hurt plays Dr. Joe Buchanan, a slightly mad scientist who has developed a weapon for the government that harness's the power of a black hole. In the process, he has inadvertently created a worm hole that might destroy the world. On his way home from work, Buchanan is sucked into the hole and sent back in time to Europe 1812. It is here he meets Victor Frankenstein (played wonderfully by Raul Julia) and discovers that the story of Frankenstein's Monster is in fact a true story.
I believe what makes this movie so much fun is that as serious as the story appears to take itself it is actually rather humorous. Most of the scenes with the Monster in them are actually laugh out loud funny. There are a few scenes with the monster that just need to be seen to be fully understood as most of the movie is quite a bleak comedy. The ending to the movie is truly one of the bleakest endings I have ever seen.
For a Roger Corman film this is really well done. John Hurt and Raul Julia really compliment each other in this movie. It is too bad that Bridget Fonda and Jason Patric didn't have bigger roles in the movie as their characters are fascinating as well.
Well, I certainly enjoyed this film. I have watched it countless times throughout the years and I still have not grown tired of it. For me, truly a timeless film that I will watch many more times. 9/10 -
jeffyoung16 November 2017Spoilers discussing scientist's advanced, futuristic automobile.
Roger Corman never felt constrained by much, the movie's budget or the storyline. Well, maybe he did face the practicalities of a movie's budget limitations but you can't fault Corman for trying new ideas. Mixing science fiction and horror was a signature feature of Corman, and his best example of that was the 1981, "Galaxy Of Terror". Usually Corman's sci-fi/horror synthesis starts from science fiction and then reveals its horror elements.
The story line and plot of, "Frankenstein Unbound" is mostly known through the reviews so I won't waste time repeating it. Suffice to say, the best way to enjoy this Corman unique rendition of the Frankenstein genre is to unbind (pun intended) oneself from the traditional and original Frankenstein book and accept the movie as a very different interpretation with its Dean Koontz-like science fiction futuristic background.
I'm not the only reviewer who was wowed by the slick, futuristic, hydrogen fuel cell, DeLorean-like, silvery convertible with its artificial intelligent, on-board computer that functions as tech wizard personal assistant to the futuristic scientist driver (which one reviewer accurately described as slightly mad scientist). For me this was the most fun part of the movie, especially when the artificial intelligent computer informs the scientist that without access to a mainframe computer it will take 96 hours to complete the scientist's projection calculation of the next atmospheric time tear ripple. I somehow believe that technology is somewhere in the near future. The computer technology was nowhere near what we have now back in 1990 when even personal computers were rare and computers were still thought of as big machine installations with dot matrix printer paper. The computers of 2017 are so fast and efficient and portable that it seems like but a small step to making computers talk to us. Imagine the convenience of telling your personal computer what to do instead of having to spend the time typing everything. -
Coventry10 June 2005I'm a great admirer of Roger Corman and I definitely think that he's listed high among the most influential persons ever to be active in the horror industry. But let's face it it's been more than 30 years since he directed those adorable quickies of his and he certainly 'lost the touch'. In 1990, after nearly twenty years of producing only, Roger all of a sudden decided to direct again and he chose for a funky, hi-tech update of the classic Frankenstein tale. Even though the cast is filled with prominent names and even though Corman's filming budget was reasonably high, "Frankenstein Unbound" constantly looks like amateurish garbage. The screenplay, adapted from the Brian Aldiss novel, attempts to spoof the Frankenstein premise by catapulting 21th century scientist John Hurt back to the 1800's where he encounters the mad doctor Raul Julia. This latter tries to involve the mysterious man from the future and his sorcery tricks in his experiments to create life, etc etc... The story is too stupid for words and it's really exaggerated to see how Hurt even succeeds in seducing the legendary female novelist Mary Shelley. The monster looks very un-scary and the gore although plenty of it fails to entertain. Corman stuffs his film with metaphors that make no sense and there's a complete lack of involvement. The only sequence that slightly pleased me was Raul Julia screaming out his interpretation of the famous "It's Alive...It's Alive!!!!"- words. I still think Roger Corman is a genius for the brilliant Edgar Allen Poe cycle he did in the sixties (starring Vincent Price!) but this "Frankenstein Unbound" is one movie you won't ever see me recommending.
-
slywlf5427 October 2011First I must admit I have never been a Corman fan - all that spurting blood just never appealed to me. Yet something drew me to this, despite that concern, and I am not sorry I followed my hunch and rented this so many years ago. I tend to read the book either before or instead of watching movies, and Shelly wrote one amazing story. As much as I loved them, Karloff's movies had next to nothing besides the names to do with the book. As far as I am concerned, even though the story clearly does not precisely follow Shelly's tale, it is by far truest to the underlying depth of the book, and quite possibly the only film version that captures her primary theme of personal responsibility. The acting all around was good, especially considering some of the stretches required, and I quite enjoyed the special effects. Without going to wild extremes they were subtly effective and quite haunting. There were, of course, a few of Corman's trademark touches, but they fit the story so well even I could find no objection. As of this writing I have just watched this for the fifth time - quite a record considering I am still not really a Corman fan ;-)
-
I am a Roger Corman fan from way back. He has hit a lot of balls out of the ball park, but this one grounded out on third.
It comes across as a mini-series that was edited down to one film. Major plot points, and the ending, were left on the cutting room floor. The superior cast, especially for a Corman film, seems left standing around waiting for the next page of the script to be delivered. The ending was filmed on a day when the script never showed up at all, leaving the actors to "wing it."
It is too bad really because the idea seems original enough. A new spin on a story that has been done to death (so to speak). Maybe the rest of the film will be restored someday and Corman will have another classic on his hands. Until then, skip this one and rent "Tomb of Ligiea." -
One of the genre's favourite cult directors, Roger Corman, returned to the genre to direct this adaptation of the Brian Aldiss novel. FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND is a film which successfully re-invents the myth of the Frankenstein legend, cleverly using futuristic science fiction as a plot twist on the old tale of dark horror, the result being plenty of originality and interest in the complicated but entertaining storyline. Packed with special effects - which may not always be authentic, but always look pretty, which is a plus point in my book - strong acting from a mainstream cast and a pace that never lets up, FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND is a B-movie made good and possibly the best of Corman's legendary career.
The film is best watched knowing nothing about it going in, which is why I'll keep the plot details sketchy. The basis of the plot is in the Frankenstein story by Mary Shelley, except here that the creature wants a bride and that Shelley and her companion Byron also exist in the real world and Shelley is actually influenced to write Frankenstein by the real-life events that she sees occurring - got that? Along with the interesting and unpredictable plot, Corman mixes in what he knows fans want to see - gore, with victims of the monster torn to shreds and losing arms and heads at every turn. The makeup for the monster (played very well by Nick Brimble from ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES) is unconventional and slightly over-the-top, but at least it looks original compared to all the other creations. FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND also makes some very good use of lighting effects for the imaginative finale, which certainly makes you think.
The casting is unconventional but works. John Hurt at first seems an odd choice for the lead, Dr Buchanan, but he pulls off the part with ease and puts in a fine, detailed performance. In fact it's one of the best performances I've seen from this underrated actor. Raul Julia is all glaring-eyes-mad as Victor Frankenstein and chews the scenery memorably and with relish, whilst a young Bridget Fonda slips effortlessly into the role of Mary Shelley. Also appearing are Jason Patric and the late Michael Hutchence as Byron and Percy Shelley respectively. FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND flies by at a watchable and easy pace and happily mixes science fiction ideas, theoretical discussions. and B-movie bloodshed into a welcome and pleasing mix that proves to be a refreshing and overlooked addition to the overworked Frankenstein legend. Recommended. -
ericstevenson21 September 2016Roger Corman is a director with a bad reputation as one of the worst in the whole film industry. I've actually done more research and found out that he did make some better recent movies. Then again, he might have just been an extra or something in them. Anyway, this movie takes place in the future and features a scientist being sent back to the past to the days of Frankenstein. I actually really do like certain scenes in this film. The scenes with Mary Shelley are actually really well done. She is portrayed very nicely in this film and I like how they tie her role to the actual book. John Hurt has died in more movies than any other actor (is it because of his name?) that I was surprised he survived this one.
Raul Julia looked like Tim Curry in this movie. What weighs this film down, however is that the Frankenstein Monster is very poorly designed. I like how he can talk, but the finale of this film is really bad. It features everyone going to some barren wasteland by the thing that travels through time. We see Benjamin (Julia) and the monster go to some laboratory that Benjamin apparently made? Then he declares him to be Frankenstein. The monster is killed by lasers but survives and lives in his mind? It got really confusing. I feel bad, because this film could have been good with some interesting ideas, but the climax is so bad I can't recommend it. This film at least had potential, so I'll give it that. At the end, it turned into a "Doctor Who" episode. ** -
Who would had guessed that a Roger Corman directed movie, involving the Frankenstein story and time traveling would work out so well? Honestly. I simply liked watching this movie and I'm willing to call it a very underrated one.
It's obviously not a perfect movie but it's still one that works out for most part, despite its crazy and silly sounding concept. You could thank the story for that, which is being more creative and original than you beforehand would imaging. Credit for this though should mostly be given to Brian Aldiss, who was the author of the novel on which this movie got based.
There are so many different Frankenstein knockoffs out there but thing they all have in common is that they seem very much alike. Much alike with its themes, characters and performances. This movie is an original spin on the familiar Frankenstein story, that features still most of the familiar characters but not in the way they normally get presented. It's more a movie that delves into what the inspiration for the Frankenstein story was, as if it all really happened.
This by no means is being a typical Corman flick. It's still a cheap movie but it really isn't being a cheap looking one. It's not far as campy and filled with cheese as basically any other Corman production. My guess is that this simply was a project Corman really had a heart for and this (which also would explain why he directed this movie personally, even though he had previously quit directing movies back in 1971 already) was being a straightforward attempt at making a serious and good movie. And in my opinion he also for most part succeeded in this!
The movie also has a real awesome cast in it, with John Hurt as the main lead and Raul Raul Julia as Dr. Frankenstein. Especially Raul Julia is acting as if he was in a Shakespeare play, which might seem a bit over-the-top for a movie like this but I still really liked his performance and he gave the character something extra with it.
It's definitely true though that the movie its second half is not as good as its first. The movie suddenly starts to become more messy and less fun. The first part of the movie was so entertaining and made me enjoy the movie very much, which makes it all the more a shame that not the entire movie is being like this.
Nevertheless, this movie is as good as a time traveling movie involving the Frankenstein story can get! A bit of an underrated movie, that definitely deserves some more credit, for being original and effective as well.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/ -
BandSAboutMovies12 January 2022Three Brian Aldis novels have been made into movies. Brothers of the Head, AI (yes, the Kubrick started and Spielberg ended movie) and this one, which was the first movie that Roger Corman had directed for two decades.
This is probably the best cast that Corman ever had, with John Hurt as the future scientist, Raul Julia as Dr. Frankenstein, Bridget Fonda as Mary Shelley, INXS singer Michael Hutchence as Percy Shelley, Nick Brimble as Frankenstein's Monster and Jason Patric as Lord Byron.
So it stands to reason that he should make a movie where a man goes back in time - thanks to a military weapon and a computer car - to the time of the Shelleys and the real monster. Or monsters.
This is also the last movie Corman directed. It's also the only movie where a future man faxes Mary Shelley her novel that she's written before she writes it. -
planktonrules24 September 2012I saw this film for one reason--it was directed by Roger Corman. He has had an amazing ability as a producer and director to make the absolute most of every single penny--making amazingly good films for rock-bottom prices. This was his first time directing in almost two decades--and that's more than enough reason to see the film.
This version of "Frankenstein" is different than most because of instead of setting it about the time of Mary Shelly's novel in the early 19th century, this one sets the story in the near future--at least in the beginning. However, this sci-fi aspect, the gorgeous scenery as well as some decent actors (requiring higher salaries) make this a film that MUST have been relatively expensive for a Corman film. Unfortunately, IMDb does not list what the film cost to make.
Dr. Joe Buchanan (John Hurt) is a guy who makes weapons for the Defense Department! However, his weapon has weird side effects and inexplicably transports him (and his majorly cool car) to 1817--where he meets up with Dr. Frankenstein! Now I sure didn't see THAT coming! What makes this more interesting is that this is not some parallel world--there really was a Dr. Frankenstein AND Buchanan gets to also meet Mary Shelley--the lady who wrote the novel! It seems that her inspiration was very close to the book--the doctor DID work on reviving the dead. However, unlike the reckless guy in the novel, this doctor was not irresponsible...he was EVIL! So, you get to see Buchanan interacting with both the author and her worthless friends, Byron and Percy Shelley, as well as the monster and the mad doctor! It's all VERY strange--but oddly interesting.
Is this a great film? No. The ending is pretty cool--but also pretty weird and out there! But, what I really appreciate is that it took the original story and completely redid it in an interesting and novel manner. Worth seeing and STRANGE!! -
preppy-312 April 2006Movie starts in 2031 with John Hurt playing a scientist that develops a bomb so powerful it creates a time rift. Him and his (talking) car are whisked back to 1817. There he meets Dr. Frankenstein (Raul Julia) and finds he DID make a monster who wants a mate. He also runs into Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Bridget Fonda) who later became Mary Shelley and wrote "Frankenstein", George Byron (Jason Patric) and Percy Shelley (Michael Hutchence).
What a mess! The story lumbers all over the place--I had no idea where this was going. It looks pretty good but has lousy makeup (on the monster) and hilariously terrible special effects. The acting is the sole saving grace. Julia is terrible (as always) but Hurt is good and Fonda, Patric and Hutchence are obviously having a GREAT time. Stiil, it can't save the movie.
This got a lot of notice when it came out in 1990 because it was the first film Roger Corman had directed in about 20 years. All the interest evaporated when people actually SAW the film. I saw it in a totally empty theatre back in 1990! This is a real disaster and has (rightfully) been forgotten. Only the scenes with Fonda, Patric and Hutchence work. Skip this one. -
JoeKuul310 August 2004I really like this movie and can't understand why some people seem to enjoy trashing it and picking apart every little detail. Haven't they seen any of Corman's old films? Were they expecting some kind of masterpiece this time around?
That said, I thought that the "double opposable thumb" idea was excellent - seems like a plausible next evolutionary step.
The talking car was AWESOME! It's MUCH better than K.I.T.T. from Knightrider. I especially like the part when he goes into the past and the car is checking for satellites and radio stations, and all the cool graphics come up as the car reports that it can't find any types of links to modern society. It really made me think, "Woah! How would a person from the year 2004 deal with that situation?" Cell phone doesn't work, no payphones around, no phones of ANY kind, no Television or radio, none of the modern conveniences that we take for granted these days...
I love SciFi, futuristicky kinda stuff. So the ending (although somewhat confusing) was also enjoyable to me. If you like time-travel type Sci-Fi movies, I would definitely recommend this movie to you. -
The_Void28 October 2005In 1990, B-movie god Roger Corman would return to the director's chair to 'show the kids how it's done'. I'm not sure why he chose to do this, as after his series of Edgar Allen Poe adaptations in the sixties; Corman has to prove nothing to nobody. Anyway, he decided otherwise and this film adaptation of Brian Aldiss's novel of the same title is the result. The plot absolutely reeks of something that would make a great campy B-movie, and while this is very messy indeed; Corman has created something that is indeed very camp, and very much a B-class film. The film, however, is absolutely nothing the like best films that Corman has made; but it does show that three decades after he made films like 'The Terror' and ' The Little Shop of Horrors', the man that made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime hasn't lost his love for really silly movies! The plot blends classic literature with period drama and Sci-Fi, and sees the American inventor of a new weapon being sent back in time to 1817 Switzerland, where he meets Mary Shelly, along with the inspirations for her book; Victor Frankenstein and his monster!
I'm sure that the themes were a lot better handled in the book, but even though this is a very silly film; they still shine through. In the classic story, Frankenstein created his monster with the intention of helping mankind, and our scientist here has done the same thing. Both men's experiments ended up going wrong with dire consequences, and the story harks back to Shelly's classic theme of how man should not try and play God. One thing I really didn't like about this film was the make-up on the monster. It looks silly, and not in a good way; and since the monster is a big part of the story, it brings the film down a little. Corman has recruited a decent cast for this flick, including John Hurt, Raul Julia and Bridget Fonda. This is hardly an actor's film, however, and none of them put in good performances. John Hurt looks bored most of the time, and the rest of the cast are on autopilot; but like I say, it's not an actor's film so it doesn't matter. Overall, I can definitely see why a lot of people don't like this film - but if, like me, you have a penchant for ridiculous movies; you'll probably find something to like here. -
doshin0914 November 2010I actually have quite a bit of respect for Roger Corman, especially because he's given a lot of people their start in movies: Jack Nicholson, Jonathan Demme, Ron Howard and John Sayles among many, many others. But this one is an embarrassment to nearly all concerned: awful dialogue, no atmosphere, anachronisms galore. I think possibly the reason Corman hasn't directed anything since this is that he realized he couldn't do it anymore. There are a couple of redeeming factors: the performance of Nick Brimble as the monster, who in this interpretation is agile, articulate, and somewhat complex; and the Frankenstein story itself, which is closer to Mary Shelley's original than the vast majority of other treatments. (In my opinion the original story has never really been done justice in film; the closest is "Bride of Frankenstein.")